4 ms·
To add, that's not the same as "not paying out", it's settling in the opposite direction.
by ekjhgkejhgk 10mo ago
To add, that's not the same as "not paying out", it's settling in the opposite direction.
- londons_explore 10mo agoAnd my understanding is polymarket themselves don't have much financial incentive to settle one way or the other.
- pests 10mo agoI think its a bit more complicated than this. Disputed outcomes are decided by votes from UMA token holders, which are anonymously owned. I remember reading a theory (with evidence, can't find the article now) that the venn diagram between Polymarket owners/stakeholders and UMA whales is close to a circle.
- xorcist 10mo agoI am surprised to learn this. Can you influence outcomes on Polymarket by purchasing enough UMA tokens? Why would people accept this? Especially if ownership is anonymous and could overlap with market actors?
- margalabargala 10mo agoPeople will accept it as long as it mostly operates in an expected manner and they get their payout. People are very good at convincing themselves that because something has not happened, therefore it will not. When UMA is eventually abused to make a lot of money, then perhaps things will change.
- smithoc 10mo agoFor the same people accept Tether's claims of solvency even though they refuse audits and obviously lie about ownership of various assets. For the same reason people ignore wash trading. For the same reason people continue using Sam-coins even after FTX's implosion. Because A) they're not paying attention, B) they're in denial and C) because they think they can profit in the short term before it collapses, or that the odds are in their favor to profit despite the risks.
- krunck 10mo agoBut it will feel pressure from a certain government that want's to convince people that it did not "invade" but rather "policed" Venezuela.
- gambiting 10mo agoI don't think this government particularily cares about convincing people about anything, they are just doing whatever they want public opinion be damned.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- monocasa 10mo agoMaybe. I've found that dishonest bookies will commonly bet when they have insider information or some way to push the outcome in one direction. That's why the mob both employs bookies and pays boxers to throw fights.
- dbbk 10mo agoIt's not settling though is it? Surely it's open until the US does it? I don't think it's timeboxed